The Quebec experiment has definitely been conclusive; it's true. Some 350 men wear or have worn an anti-approach bracelet, and there have been no homicides. Only three men have cut their bracelets. In one of those cases, the victim wasn't notified by the police service. In the other two, the victim was notified and officers immediately arrested the man. In Spain, nearly 800 women have worn a bracelet in recent years, and there have been no homicides. So it's an effective tool.
When a bill is passed in Canada, the Minister of Justice is responsible for informing the judicial councils of it. Once a bill receives royal assent, it comes into force either automatically or by order. It then becomes part of the legal system and the federal government's role is to inform. In my view, that's where the problem lies. We passed a bill, but it feels as though we shelved it, thinking it would manage itself. But that's not the case. That requires an information strategy from the judiciary. There are judicial councils in all the provinces, and this information has to reach them. The first person responsible for this is the federal Minister of Justice. Then it's up to each of the provincial ministers who have an administration-of-justice mandate.
It's as though there was no comprehensive strategy in Canada for information to reach judges in their courts. Judges regularly meet to discuss legislative changes. However, there should be a specific strategy when changes concerning tools as important as the electronic bracelet are made because lives are at stake.
I hope that answers your question.